Saints

Everything that has nothing to do with fishing.
User avatar
Kimtown
Rank: Premium Member
Rank: Premium Member
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:29 pm
Has liked: 303 times
Likes received: 310 times

Re: Saints

Post by Kimtown » Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:58 pm

cobby wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:25 am
Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 12:45 am
Should I be surprised that Lynch only copped another fine and Cotchin completely escaped any sanction once again?

Nope, I’m not surprised
What’s your angle here Cobby?

I don’t remember refuting that this specific incident shouldn’t be looked at, so I’m not really too sure what agenda you’re trying to push...

You can deflect it however you like, but there is no way anyone can argue that Richmond players aren’t protected species, both by umpiring officials and the MRP and tribunal.

User avatar
VooDoo
Rank: Premium Member
Rank: Premium Member
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:42 pm
Location: Rain Forest Over The Rainbow
Has liked: 165 times
Likes received: 192 times

Re: Saints

Post by VooDoo » Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:24 pm

Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:58 pm
cobby wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:25 am
Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 12:45 am
Should I be surprised that Lynch only copped another fine and Cotchin completely escaped any sanction once again?

Nope, I’m not surprised
What’s your angle here Cobby?

I don’t remember refuting that this specific incident shouldn’t be looked at, so I’m not really too sure what agenda you’re trying to push...

You can deflect it however you like, but there is no way anyone can argue that Richmond players aren’t protected species, both by umpiring officials and the MRP and tribunal.
Of course we Tigers are a protected specie ... we were on the endangered list for over 3 decades :)
___________________________

"VooDoo .... WhoDoo .... YouDoo .... VooDoo" The Bug (Bugatti) S.A. [2019]

cobby
Rank: Murray Cod
Rank: Murray Cod
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:39 pm
Has liked: 136 times
Likes received: 324 times

Re: Saints

Post by cobby » Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:50 pm

Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:58 pm
cobby wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:25 am
Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 12:45 am
Should I be surprised that Lynch only copped another fine and Cotchin completely escaped any sanction once again?

Nope, I’m not surprised
What’s your angle here Cobby?

I don’t remember refuting that this specific incident shouldn’t be looked at, so I’m not really too sure what agenda you’re trying to push...

You can deflect it however you like, but there is no way anyone can argue that Richmond players aren’t protected species, both by umpiring officials and the MRP and tribunal.
That whinging about the Cotchin high tackle is ridiculous. It was high, and he hit Jones hard. Jones was trying to take the advantage which is why no 50 was called, it would be a secondary free kick 5m to the right of the initial free. You'd have 5 to 10 players a week suspended for high tackles if you wanted to start going down that angle. And Jones throwing an arm out in a weak attempt to tackle would also be one of those suspended, instead neither of those 2 were even looked at.

As for Lynch, there was less force used putting the knee on Howard or pressure holding it there than what is need to close a bail arm on a reel. There's no other possible charge aside from misconduct and its fine because of that, even if it was sent to the tribunal.

User avatar
Kimtown
Rank: Premium Member
Rank: Premium Member
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:29 pm
Has liked: 303 times
Likes received: 310 times

Re: Saints

Post by Kimtown » Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:58 pm

cobby wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:50 pm
Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:58 pm
cobby wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:25 am
Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 12:45 am
Should I be surprised that Lynch only copped another fine and Cotchin completely escaped any sanction once again?

Nope, I’m not surprised
What’s your angle here Cobby?

I don’t remember refuting that this specific incident shouldn’t be looked at, so I’m not really too sure what agenda you’re trying to push...

You can deflect it however you like, but there is no way anyone can argue that Richmond players aren’t protected species, both by umpiring officials and the MRP and tribunal.
That whinging about the Cotchin high tackle is ridiculous. It was high, and he hit Jones hard. Jones was trying to take the advantage which is why no 50 was called, it would be a secondary free kick 5m to the right of the initial free. You'd have 5 to 10 players a week suspended for high tackles if you wanted to start going down that angle. And Jones throwing an arm out in a weak attempt to tackle would also be one of those suspended, instead neither of those 2 were even looked at.

As for Lynch, there was less force used putting the knee on Howard or pressure holding it there than what is need to close a bail arm on a reel. There's no other possible charge aside from misconduct and its fine because of that, even if it was sent to the tribunal.
That’s cool but you’re looking at it with a fairly bias perspective

The way I see it, Cotchin has a knack of escaping MRP scrutiny, especially in important finals games. Michael Christian set a precedence last week by suspending Ben Long for “potential to cause severe injury” yet doesn’t even look at Cotchins tackle. This could have been far worse. That was more than just your regular “high tackle”, he legit supplexed him, it was pretty much the best possible result for Jones, it should have been a lot worse than it was.

FWIW Jones closed fist to Bakers face should also have been cited, probably choosing not to as they would have to look at Cotchins case.


Don’t even get me started on Tom Lynch. He has more lives than a game of super mario. Seriously, take off the black and yellow glasses mate, the rest of the football world can see it for what it is.

cobby
Rank: Murray Cod
Rank: Murray Cod
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:39 pm
Has liked: 136 times
Likes received: 324 times

Re: Saints

Post by cobby » Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:46 am

Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:58 pm
cobby wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:50 pm
Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:58 pm
cobby wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:25 am
Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 12:45 am
Should I be surprised that Lynch only copped another fine and Cotchin completely escaped any sanction once again?

Nope, I’m not surprised
What’s your angle here Cobby?

I don’t remember refuting that this specific incident shouldn’t be looked at, so I’m not really too sure what agenda you’re trying to push...

You can deflect it however you like, but there is no way anyone can argue that Richmond players aren’t protected species, both by umpiring officials and the MRP and tribunal.
That whinging about the Cotchin high tackle is ridiculous. It was high, and he hit Jones hard. Jones was trying to take the advantage which is why no 50 was called, it would be a secondary free kick 5m to the right of the initial free. You'd have 5 to 10 players a week suspended for high tackles if you wanted to start going down that angle. And Jones throwing an arm out in a weak attempt to tackle would also be one of those suspended, instead neither of those 2 were even looked at.

As for Lynch, there was less force used putting the knee on Howard or pressure holding it there than what is need to close a bail arm on a reel. There's no other possible charge aside from misconduct and its fine because of that, even if it was sent to the tribunal.
That’s cool but you’re looking at it with a fairly bias perspective

The way I see it, Cotchin has a knack of escaping MRP scrutiny, especially in important finals games. Michael Christian set a precedence last week by suspending Ben Long for “potential to cause severe injury” yet doesn’t even look at Cotchins tackle. This could have been far worse. That was more than just your regular “high tackle”, he legit supplexed him, it was pretty much the best possible result for Jones, it should have been a lot worse than it was.

FWIW Jones closed fist to Bakers face should also have been cited, probably choosing not to as they would have to look at Cotchins case.


Don’t even get me started on Tom Lynch. He has more lives than a game of super mario. Seriously, take off the black and yellow glasses mate, the rest of the football world can see it for what it is.
Let me guess, 2017 preliminary final, where Shiel went on to play a further 5 minutes of game time and was sat on his arse by Astbury long after the Cotchin hit? Go watch the first quarter of the qualifying final and you'll see Cotchin tackle in the exact same manner, albeit not high.

And Christian did to Long exactly what he's done for years now to any player that's collected the head with a bump. Suspended them. How it's even a discussion point is beyond me. Any bump that's collected the head has been a suspension, including the ridiculousness of suspending players because of the resulting head clash. There's no ifs, no buts. That's the way the AFL have done it for a decade, all due to the POTENTIAL to cause injury. Long is just lucky Mcrae doesn't have a glass jaw otherwise he'd have an extended pre season too. Now show me where a player in the last 20 years has been suspended for a high tackle...

Lynch got done for it. Its a **** look which is why it was even a misconduct charge, but unlike Sicily on Selwood a few years back there was absolutely no force in the action at all. And Sicily only got a week. The rest, well bring up some past examples over the last 5 years aside from Hawkins jumper punch where any player has recieved more than a fine for similar actions.

User avatar
Kimtown
Rank: Premium Member
Rank: Premium Member
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:29 pm
Has liked: 303 times
Likes received: 310 times

Re: Saints

Post by Kimtown » Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:43 am

cobby wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:46 am
Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:58 pm
cobby wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:50 pm
Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:58 pm
cobby wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:25 am
What’s your angle here Cobby?

I don’t remember refuting that this specific incident shouldn’t be looked at, so I’m not really too sure what agenda you’re trying to push...

You can deflect it however you like, but there is no way anyone can argue that Richmond players aren’t protected species, both by umpiring officials and the MRP and tribunal.
That whinging about the Cotchin high tackle is ridiculous. It was high, and he hit Jones hard. Jones was trying to take the advantage which is why no 50 was called, it would be a secondary free kick 5m to the right of the initial free. You'd have 5 to 10 players a week suspended for high tackles if you wanted to start going down that angle. And Jones throwing an arm out in a weak attempt to tackle would also be one of those suspended, instead neither of those 2 were even looked at.

As for Lynch, there was less force used putting the knee on Howard or pressure holding it there than what is need to close a bail arm on a reel. There's no other possible charge aside from misconduct and its fine because of that, even if it was sent to the tribunal.
That’s cool but you’re looking at it with a fairly bias perspective

The way I see it, Cotchin has a knack of escaping MRP scrutiny, especially in important finals games. Michael Christian set a precedence last week by suspending Ben Long for “potential to cause severe injury” yet doesn’t even look at Cotchins tackle. This could have been far worse. That was more than just your regular “high tackle”, he legit supplexed him, it was pretty much the best possible result for Jones, it should have been a lot worse than it was.

FWIW Jones closed fist to Bakers face should also have been cited, probably choosing not to as they would have to look at Cotchins case.


Don’t even get me started on Tom Lynch. He has more lives than a game of super mario. Seriously, take off the black and yellow glasses mate, the rest of the football world can see it for what it is.
Let me guess, 2017 preliminary final, where Shiel went on to play a further 5 minutes of game time and was sat on his arse by Astbury long after the Cotchin hit? Go watch the first quarter of the qualifying final and you'll see Cotchin tackle in the exact same manner, albeit not high.

And Christian did to Long exactly what he's done for years now to any player that's collected the head with a bump. Suspended them. How it's even a discussion point is beyond me. Any bump that's collected the head has been a suspension, including the ridiculousness of suspending players because of the resulting head clash. There's no ifs, no buts. That's the way the AFL have done it for a decade, all due to the POTENTIAL to cause injury. Long is just lucky Mcrae doesn't have a glass jaw otherwise he'd have an extended pre season too. Now show me where a player in the last 20 years has been suspended for a high tackle...

Lynch got done for it. Its a **** look which is why it was even a misconduct charge, but unlike Sicily on Selwood a few years back there was absolutely no force in the action at all. And Sicily only got a week. The rest, well bring up some past examples over the last 5 years aside from Hawkins jumper punch where any player has recieved more than a fine for similar actions.
Players might not have been suspended for a high tackle (lol I’m sure they have, I remember a Barry Hall coat hanger at one point mid 2000s, but for your sake let’s pretend they haven’t) but they have certainly have been suspended for dangerous tackles... this is the usual arm pin style of tackle that’s targeted, however you cannot tell me Cotchins tackle doesn’t meet the same criteria of a dangerous tackle? It’s a head high sling and I have little doubt in my mind that he knew exactly what he was doing. Cotchin is an extremely high IQ player, with insane hand eye co-ordination, you’re telling me for a split second he just clumsily laid the most dangerous high tackle I’ve ever seen? Yeah, nah, I don’t buy it. 100% intention to try and injure Jones illegally and in my book that is the classification of a dirty player.

Like I said, the wider football community see it for what it is, so I’m okay with that. I don’t really feel the need to convince a few tigers fans that their captain is dirty when I already know that he is.

Also Ben Long attempted to pull out of the bump. There was zero intention. You cannot suspend someone for the potential to cause injury 1 week, and then not the next. Regardless of if it’s a bump to the head or not. MRP needs to scrapped

cobby
Rank: Murray Cod
Rank: Murray Cod
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:39 pm
Has liked: 136 times
Likes received: 324 times

Re: Saints

Post by cobby » Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:50 am

Kimtown wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:43 am
cobby wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:46 am
Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:58 pm
cobby wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:50 pm
Kimtown wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:58 pm


What’s your angle here Cobby?

I don’t remember refuting that this specific incident shouldn’t be looked at, so I’m not really too sure what agenda you’re trying to push...

You can deflect it however you like, but there is no way anyone can argue that Richmond players aren’t protected species, both by umpiring officials and the MRP and tribunal.
That whinging about the Cotchin high tackle is ridiculous. It was high, and he hit Jones hard. Jones was trying to take the advantage which is why no 50 was called, it would be a secondary free kick 5m to the right of the initial free. You'd have 5 to 10 players a week suspended for high tackles if you wanted to start going down that angle. And Jones throwing an arm out in a weak attempt to tackle would also be one of those suspended, instead neither of those 2 were even looked at.

As for Lynch, there was less force used putting the knee on Howard or pressure holding it there than what is need to close a bail arm on a reel. There's no other possible charge aside from misconduct and its fine because of that, even if it was sent to the tribunal.
That’s cool but you’re looking at it with a fairly bias perspective

The way I see it, Cotchin has a knack of escaping MRP scrutiny, especially in important finals games. Michael Christian set a precedence last week by suspending Ben Long for “potential to cause severe injury” yet doesn’t even look at Cotchins tackle. This could have been far worse. That was more than just your regular “high tackle”, he legit supplexed him, it was pretty much the best possible result for Jones, it should have been a lot worse than it was.

FWIW Jones closed fist to Bakers face should also have been cited, probably choosing not to as they would have to look at Cotchins case.


Don’t even get me started on Tom Lynch. He has more lives than a game of super mario. Seriously, take off the black and yellow glasses mate, the rest of the football world can see it for what it is.
Let me guess, 2017 preliminary final, where Shiel went on to play a further 5 minutes of game time and was sat on his arse by Astbury long after the Cotchin hit? Go watch the first quarter of the qualifying final and you'll see Cotchin tackle in the exact same manner, albeit not high.

And Christian did to Long exactly what he's done for years now to any player that's collected the head with a bump. Suspended them. How it's even a discussion point is beyond me. Any bump that's collected the head has been a suspension, including the ridiculousness of suspending players because of the resulting head clash. There's no ifs, no buts. That's the way the AFL have done it for a decade, all due to the POTENTIAL to cause injury. Long is just lucky Mcrae doesn't have a glass jaw otherwise he'd have an extended pre season too. Now show me where a player in the last 20 years has been suspended for a high tackle...

Lynch got done for it. Its a **** look which is why it was even a misconduct charge, but unlike Sicily on Selwood a few years back there was absolutely no force in the action at all. And Sicily only got a week. The rest, well bring up some past examples over the last 5 years aside from Hawkins jumper punch where any player has recieved more than a fine for similar actions.
Players might not have been suspended for a high tackle (lol I’m sure they have, I remember a Barry Hall coat hanger at one point mid 2000s, but for your sake let’s pretend they haven’t) but they have certainly have been suspended for dangerous tackles... this is the usual arm pin style of tackle that’s targeted, however you cannot tell me Cotchins tackle doesn’t meet the same criteria of a dangerous tackle? It’s a head high sling and I have little doubt in my mind that he knew exactly what he was doing. Cotchin is an extremely high IQ player, with insane hand eye co-ordination, you’re telling me for a split second he just clumsily laid the most dangerous high tackle I’ve ever seen? Yeah, nah, I don’t buy it. 100% intention to try and injure Jones illegally and in my book that is the classification of a dirty player.

Like I said, the wider football community see it for what it is, so I’m okay with that. I don’t really feel the need to convince a few tigers fans that their captain is dirty when I already know that he is.

Also Ben Long attempted to pull out of the bump. There was zero intention. You cannot suspend someone for the potential to cause injury 1 week, and then not the next. Regardless of if it’s a bump to the head or not. MRP needs to scrapped
You just made me trawl through the cesspit that is bigfooty for that... 2005 grand final. Hall gave Wirrapunda a good coathanger: 0 weeks. And the irony of bringing up the dangerous tackle debacle is, you can have 2 almost identical tackles in the same game, if 1 of those results in the player being perfectly fine: free kick, no suspension. If the other one knocks out the player it's a free kick plus a 2-4 weeks suspension. Was Cotchins a dangerous tackle? Well yes. Was it a dangerous tackle worth a suspension under the system the AFL works under? Absolutely no precedence for a suspension.

Pulling out of the bump or not, Long still hit him in the head. They have said since day dot of targeting the bump they'll suspend players due to the potential to cause injury. They have never said it over reckless high tackles hence the 2 vastly different outcomes.

And I concur with your final sentence

User avatar
VooDoo
Rank: Premium Member
Rank: Premium Member
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:42 pm
Location: Rain Forest Over The Rainbow
Has liked: 165 times
Likes received: 192 times

Re: Saints

Post by VooDoo » Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:14 pm

"We're from Tighherrlllannnndd!!!!"

Another crack at destiny.

Saint time will come .... one day :)
___________________________

"VooDoo .... WhoDoo .... YouDoo .... VooDoo" The Bug (Bugatti) S.A. [2019]

User avatar
Kimtown
Rank: Premium Member
Rank: Premium Member
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:29 pm
Has liked: 303 times
Likes received: 310 times

Re: Saints

Post by Kimtown » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:05 pm

2021 might be year of the saint

And I reckon Brad Crouch and Jye Caldwell know it ;)

User avatar
VooDoo
Rank: Premium Member
Rank: Premium Member
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:42 pm
Location: Rain Forest Over The Rainbow
Has liked: 165 times
Likes received: 192 times

Re: Saints

Post by VooDoo » Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:06 am

Kimtown wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:05 pm
2021 might be year of the saint

And I reckon Brad Crouch and Jye Caldwell know it ;)
And 2021 is could be the year for the other 17 teams in the comp :)

Between now and next September, there will be a lot of waters flowing under the bridge ... good luck to the Saints!!!

Until then we Tigers will enjoy definitely enjoy tomorrow regardless if we win loss or draw :)

If Geelong comes out on top then it is a fitting farewell to The Son of God :tu:
___________________________

"VooDoo .... WhoDoo .... YouDoo .... VooDoo" The Bug (Bugatti) S.A. [2019]

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Forum”